Hollywood: Google TV would put us on board big pirate ship

The studios say the FCC's AllVid proposal, backed by Google, would set up a " …

The comments are streaming in from video and content providers on the Federal Communications Commission's AllVid proposal. Quite a few are critical of the scheme, especially those of the trade association representing Hollywood's biggest studios.

Under the plan, cable, satellite, or telco video providers would send their signals to an adapter in your home that would present a standard interface to all your video viewing devices. The adapter could be connected to any gadget that can watch pay TV or Internet content—an HDTV, computer, or whatever else is coming to the market.

But the Motion Picture Association of America dislikes this idea. The AllVid plan "initially sounds appealing," MPAA wrote to the agency, with its potential to allow consumers to "search for a movie from among an MVPD's [multi-video program distributor's] available channels, video-on-demand options, home-archived materials, and Internet offerings."

Unsuspecting consumers

The trade association doesn't mention Google TV in its filing, but is essentially reacting to the search engine giant's vision of how AllVid would be implemented. As Google put it in its statement supportive of AllVid, the Google TV vision is a device that can aggregate channels, recorded shows, YouTube videos, and services like NetFlix and Amazon Video on Demand, all over one TV screen—with a typeable search engine mechanism added on. Google is partnering with Sony, Intel, and Logitech to roll the gadget out.

We'll take a pass on the concept, MPAA says. "It would lend the illusion of legitimacy to illegitimate online sources." It might expose "unsuspecting consumers and their children" to pornography, viruses, and spam.

"The Commission should not erode consumer confidence by enabling an arrangement that could lead viewers to access stolen content unwittingly," the filing concludes, "particularly because so many illegitimate online sources are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their appearance, allowing them to deceive consumers into thinking they are legitimate."

We can see where the studios that MPAA represents are coming from, but it should be noted that plenty of Hollywood fare is or will soon be streaming on the 'Net, just a click away from many an "unsuspecting" consumer's favorite file sharing site. There's NetFlix online, Hulu, and the much hyped Comcast/Time Warner Cable TV Everywhere venture—all of whose streaming content a miscreant could watch on one Firefox tab, with the next set to a friendly neighborhood torrent engine.

But MPAA and other filers critical of the AllVid concept raise broader questions that are worth thrashing out, most notably whether the idea is doable or even necessary. Given all the devices, platforms, and applications that are already out there for watching and recording pay TV and broadband video, does a one-size-fits-all device really make sense?

Significant intelligence differences

As an example, the trade group notes the many different ways that different services output program guides for consumers. We've already explored the copyright complexities that AllVid presents in this case, but is squeezing all these different metadata systems through AllVid even doable?

The FCC's Notice of Inquiry on AllVid says that the device would be designed to accommodate "any delivery technology that an MVPD chooses to use and allow MVPDs to continue unfettered innovation in video delivery."

But has the current video environment become too complex for such a simple interface? As Verizon points out, pay TV companies now offer consumers a wide variety of online buying, informational, and two-way support services. They stream their content into a variety of operating systems, which are often proprietary.

And as Motorola observes, there are real differences in the ways that DBS and cable/telco services transmit video services. In the case of DBS video "significant intelligence must reside in the set-top box (e.g., the box must include DVR and other capabilities), and such intelligence cannot be located in the cloud (in contrast to cable and telco networks)."

So notwithstanding the merits of the AllVid concept, couldn't the idea effectively suppress or discourage innovations that are on or heading for the video market?

"While government decision makers may possess the ability to establish a standard before a de facto or voluntary standard appears naturally in the marketplace, they generally lack adequate information to do so wisely when complex and emerging technologies are involved," the National Cable and Telecommunications Association warns.

It's a reasonable point, but as for the pitch that AllVid is a bad idea because it will put Paramount, Sony Pictures, Disney, and Warner Brothers far too close to the nasty old Internet... well, as the trade show geeks like to say, this is the Age of Convergence. That level of proximity is a done deal.

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

64 Reader Comments

Does anyone still listen to the RIAA and MPA? The continued apocalyptic marketing of these entities to forward their quest of pay-per-view to a high premium if not legislated delimited seems to favor those too ignorant to care.

Pirates are do their own thing and do not need to garner a streamed-from-source mechanism to secure seed content for redistribution, Blockbuster video has been providing them with seed content for decades.

Pirates are do their own thing and do not need to garner a streamed-from-source mechanism to secure seed content for redistribution, Blockbuster video has been providing them with seed content for decades.

Well actually, Blockbuster doesn't provide their seed content. It's the CD/DVD pressing plants and studios that have been the source of pirated media. In other words, the actual pirates work in the media industry themselves!

Problem is that "letting the market decide" has a bad track record lately.

How long did it take to sort out Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD? Anyone remember all the pain that VHS/Betamax caused?

Having a specified standard is OK as long as it's flexible and extensible

A far better example of "letting the market decide" would be Cable Card. AllVid is nothing more than an attempt to salvage the original "business requirements" of Cable Card. AllVid is simply meant to achieve all of the gools that CC was meant to but didn't due to active sabotage by the industry.

Big Media is dedicated to keeping things tightly controlled and under their thumbs.

If they insist on making piracy the only high tech option, then they are destroying their own market.

Something has to be done with the set top box. I've recently built a house and it is a gigantic mess getting the set top box installed near a HDTV that is hung on a wall. I've had to purchase multiple sets of HDMI to CAT5 converters, build cabinet space for the box, figure out where to hide everything, run AC outlets to it all, IR extenders to the STB, etc. The set top box and associated encryption has cost me approximately $1,200 per location for equipment and labor to get it connected.

My old house had seven TVs. My new one is much larger and it has three. The huge cost of wiring things coupled with the on going rental fees made me eliminate a bunch of TVs. This has lead to a corresponding large decrease in TV and movie consumption in my household. That consumption has been replaced with Internet use.

The 120GB of a FIOS DVR is also woefully inadequate for a family watching HDTV. Since I can't replace it we just watch a lot less TV.

With AllVid I can simply run CAT5 to each TV location and purchase TVs with built in decoders. That's something I can't do with a STB without using a herd of subcontractors. I could also buy a 2TB DVR and save shows for more than four days before they get over written.

Gather 'round, movie housesWherever you roamAnd admit that convergenceAround you has grownAnd accept it that soonYou'll be totally pwnedIf your business to youIs worth savin'Learn to leverage the 'netOr you'll sink like a stoneFor the times they are a-changin'.

Cable companies should to be careful. Cable box user interfaces are truly awful. Right now they make it basically impossible to integrate cable tv content into a broader interface of content. As the web based content gets more compelling people might start choosing against the cable companies in the all-or-nothing decision the cable companies are forcing on them.

Something has to be done with the set top box. I've recently built a house and it is a gigantic mess getting the set top box installed near a HDTV that is hung on a wall. I've had to purchase multiple sets of HDMI to CAT5 converters, build cabinet space for the box, figure out where to hide everything, run AC outlets to it all, IR extenders to the STB, etc. The set top box and associated encryption has cost me approximately $1,200 per location for equipment and labor to get it connected.

My old house had seven TVs. My new one is much larger and it has three. The huge cost of wiring things coupled with the on going rental fees made me eliminate a bunch of TVs. This has lead to a corresponding large decrease in TV and movie consumption in my household. That consumption has been replaced with Internet use.

The 120GB of a FIOS DVR is also woefully inadequate for a family watching HDTV. Since I can't replace it we just watch a lot less TV.

With AllVid I can simply run CAT5 to each TV location and purchase TVs with built in decoders. That's something I can't do with a STB without using a herd of subcontractors. I could also buy a 2TB DVR and save shows for more than four days before they get over written.

Oh woe is you...lots of people would love to have your problem =P

Honestly...The fact that there are only 3 TVs in your house is putting a damper on your household video consumption? Are the TVs in closets with one seat? I think this rant requires a little explanation....haha.

Anyway, whatever your situation is, it's just one of many examples of how all the various methods these companies are using to maintain what they believe is an advantageous status quo actually end up causing people to consume less. The MPAA and RIAA had better start using their noggins for something else or they're gonna get steamrolled by change whether they like it or not.

Doubt it'll happen, though...they show a remarkable ability to continue doing exactly the same thing no matter how retarded it becomes.

Honestly, I'm so sick of the MPAA & the RIAA. Do these idiots know that the pirates are 25 steps ahead of them? These guys have so many ways to counteract the latest or the next DRM scheme. It's ridonkulous that these guys do not realize the obvious fact?

The MPAA & the RIAA are the inherent creators of all content piracy!

Overpricing, greed, false restrictions such as "region coding", & DRM have created a bigger demand for pirated materials. We've been playing the DRM game for 30 years. When will the MPAA & RIAA realize that just like the movie "Wargames", DRM is simply a game that plays out like Thermonuclear War. There's no way to win. The pirates will always crack the latest scheme. They've created their piracy nightmare by restricting, forbidding, & hindering the natural flow of content.

Unfortunately, until the consumers world wide demand a ban on DRM, nothing will change. They'll bring the next scheme and the next one. Even the new systems with no analog holes already have devices on the market that circumvent the scheme and allows for copying to happen. They forget that necessity becomes the mother of all invention. There will be another DVD Jon waiting in the wings.

It's time for old technophobic Hollywood to retire. A new generation of leadership with young minds needs to come to power and work with us in the 21st Century.

Honestly, I'm so sick of the MPAA & the RIAA. Do these idiots know that the pirates are 25 steps ahead of them? These guys have so many ways to counteract the latest or the next DRM scheme. It's ridonkulous that these guys do not realize the obvious fact?

The MPAA & the RIAA are the inherent creators of all content piracy!

Overpricing, greed, false restrictions such as "region coding", & DRM have created a bigger demand for pirated materials. We've been playing the DRM game for 30 years. When will the MPAA & RIAA realize that just like the movie "Wargames", DRM is simply a game that plays out like Thermonuclear War. There's no way to win. The pirates will always crack the latest scheme. They've created their piracy nightmare by restricting, forbidding, & hindering the natural flow of content.

Unfortunately, until the consumers world wide demand a ban on DRM, nothing will change. They'll bring the next scheme and the next one. Even the new systems with no analog holes already have devices on the market that circumvent the scheme and allows for copying to happen. They forget that necessity becomes the mother of all invention. There will be another DVD Jon waiting in the wings.

It's time for old technophobic Hollywood to retire. A new generation of leadership with young minds needs to come to power and work with us in the 21st Century.

Not that i'm defending either organizations. But pirates are the reason DRM exists. Both sides can hold blame here.

"There's NetFlix online, Hulu, and the much hyped Comcast/Time Warner Cable TV Everywhere venture—all of whose streaming content a miscreant could watch on one Firefox tab, with the next set to a friendly neighborhood torrent engine."

Not that i'm defending either organizations. But pirates are the reason DRM exists. Both sides can hold blame here.

Actually, I'd have to say the content creators hold the blame here. To me, region encoding on DVD was the start of a downward slide caused by them. Macrovision existed before, but it solely existed to prevent copies being made (and this is only 'innocent' if you assume there are no legitimate reasons for wanting a copy). There are no 'innocent' reasons for region encoding - it solely exists for the purpose of being able to charge a disproportionate amount of money to some regions while discounting in others where you'd have trouble giving away the movies for free.

I will never buy another new film or piece of music that has DRM in it.And I mean what I say.I buy all stuff used and I have a big dislike for RIAA/MPAA and at least I put my money in my wallet and try to do something to stop the greedy ass companies who should just lose it already.Every time someone comes up with a decent tech then the big-ass studios try to shut it down.Over and over again.Does anyone see a pattern ?Do you enjoy spending your hard earned cash on people who are defenately not our friends ?

AllVid seems rather consumer-friendly, so it makes perfect sense that the *AA's are agin it.

I'm in an area where the analog signal has been eliminated. You have to have a STB on each TV to get anything besides basic ABC/NBC/CBS/etc broadcast. Those signals are QAM but they are not encrypted.

For example I used to have baseball games on with the volume turned down low in my office. That TV is gone since you need a STB to get the channel. I stopped buying tickets for the games because I don't follow the players any more. The TV in the guest room is gone. TV in the exercise room is gone. etc... All of the low use TVs have been eliminated.

Only one TV is in a location that is accessible to everyone. We have shifted from casual TV viewing to picking series with the DVR and then scheduling with each other for a slot to watch them in. No one wants to watch each other's shows so most of the viewing is done individually. The result of this is a lot less TV viewing which is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm probably at 2-3hrs a week now including movies.

DRM is reducing the value of my cable subscription by making me reduce the number of connected TVs. We have lots of screens in the house, but just a few are hooked to the TV signal. We're very close to pulling the plug on cable TV. Live sports and news are the only thing stopping us.

AllVid is a good solution for my situation. It lets me put low use TVs back in that don't need a STB ($12/mth each for no benefit).

As always the MPAA only sees the small picture, and only their own part of it. If they stick to their outdated opinions, traditional TV is going to go the way of the dodo... no excuse me, of the newspaper. Do they honestly think that people are going to be satisfied with the archaic set top boxes that still use the same UI as 20 years ago?Every day it's becoming easier and easier to just hook up your computer to a TV and stream all your content from there. With xbox and ps3 helping along, soon even a noob could have all the TV and movies they can get on the internet (i.e. all of them) streamed to their 50" TV - why would they then want a cable box of any kind?The only way content providers can compete is if they make it easier and more convenient - i.e. streamline, combine, simplify, which is what google is trying to do.

Not that i'm defending either organizations. But pirates are the reason DRM exists. Both sides can hold blame here.

A few infringents will always exist, that's just unavoidable.The decision to make pirates out of everyone else, however, lies with the industry.

We wholeheartedly agree.

It was the industry's decision that we "should not" be able to watch DVD content unless a shiny disc is in a player somewhere, even though we "own" (or have we licensed? No, we're quite sure that we purchased it since that's what the receipt says) that copy of the content. Even Kaleidescape lost that suit, but that was due to civil contractual terms, not copyright law (IANAL).

This week, I cancelled our Comcast "Basic 2" cable (to do so, you have to talk with Comcast's "Loyalty Team", which tries to get you to change your mind, while you can upgrade your service over the web). Just by doing that, we cut our Comcast bill by 47%. It is ridiculous that it is "all or nothing". With the $55 we save, we can subscribe to Hulu Plus or any number of streaming services for a lot less than that.

Comcast offers a PVR option, but it is limited in size and the interface is terrible. Our PVR is 3 TB and we can record entire seasons at a time and watch them later, which is exactly what the content providers (whose bills are substantially paid by advertizers) do not want. Does this violate the "social contract" by which free OTA TV is provided? Possibly, but so did getting a snack or running to the restroom during commercials--long before PVRs.

How long will it be before they realize that "a la carte" is the future's business model? The cable companies like Comcast apparently think TV should be all you can eat and not a la carte. The whole Internet is a la carte! If Comcast provided an a la carte option, they might still have $40 of our $55 by charging $10/channel/mo. for the 4 channels we watched on the Basic 2 tier, although I think that $5/channel/mo. would be more reasonable. Isn't it funny that we can watch all the TV we are able ("all you can eat") but our Internet service is capped? We voted with our dollars. Maybe some day Comcast will adapt, but until they do, we have other things to do with our time than watch TV.

Not that i'm defending either organizations. But pirates are the reason DRM exists. Both sides can hold blame here.

A few infringents will always exist, that's just unavoidable.The decision to make pirates out of everyone else, however, lies with the industry.

The decision to pirate every content producer under the sun lies with the pirates. See two can play the blame game.

Quote:

If they insist on making piracy the only high tech option, then they are destroying their own market.

Not producing content would destroy their market. As long as people desire their content there's a market.

Quote:

As always the MPAA only sees the small picture, and only their own part of it. If they stick to their outdated opinions, traditional TV is going to go the way of the dodo... no excuse me, of the newspaper.

Considering the noise made during the DTV transition I'd say regular TV will be with us for awhile.

Quote:

It was the industry's decision that we "should not" be able to watch DVD content unless a shiny disc is in a player somewhere, even though we "own" (or have we licensed? No, I'm quite sure that we purchased it since that's what the receipt says) that copy of the content.

That's like arguing it's the industries fault that you have to leave the cassette in the player in order to hear music.

Its not really the cable companies fault that everything is a la carte. The studios sell channels to the cable companies in packages. After all, who would buy those crap channels if they didnt have to. But if they are a package, then you don't have a choice. That's why cable costs so much. Because a free market wouldn't support a lot of the speciality channels.

As for the AllVid, I think the *AA's are just afraid they will be sidestepped. What do studios need them for if they can go directly to the consumer? Just like the internet is helping a lot of bands stay away from the RIAA.

I wish that there was more granularity on the channel packages for TV, but I have a feeling that if they did a la carte, the tv studios would start spreading around all the most popular shows "forcing" people to buy more and more channels to watch them all.

My old house had seven TVs. My new one is much larger and it has three. The huge cost of wiring things coupled with the on going rental fees made me eliminate a bunch of TVs. This has lead to a corresponding large decrease in TV and movie consumption in my household. That consumption has been replaced with Internet use.

Good God! Seven televisions! Are you an addict? If you're watching less TV, sounds like you're coming out ahead. How about investing some of that money into your local arts organizations and improving your community?

Not that i'm defending either organizations. But pirates are the reason DRM exists. Both sides can hold blame here.

Actually, I'd have to say the content creators hold the blame here. To me, region encoding on DVD was the start of a downward slide caused by them. Macrovision existed before, but it solely existed to prevent copies being made (and this is only 'innocent' if you assume there are no legitimate reasons for wanting a copy). There are no 'innocent' reasons for region encoding - it solely exists for the purpose of being able to charge a disproportionate amount of money to some regions while discounting in others where you'd have trouble giving away the movies for free.

More to the point, DRM grants a measure of control the producer would be lacking in an otherwise "free" market.

The MPAA has a problem with everything that they didn't think about first, if they thought about it first it would be the best thing since sliced bread...It is unbelievable that they are thinking that we will go "on board a big pirate ship", not everyone is trying to steal from you MPAA, some people actually like paying for content when it easily available (i.e. a fair price).

The MPAA has a problem with everything that they didn't think about first, if they thought about it first it would be the best thing since sliced bread...It is unbelievable that they are thinking that we will go "on board a big pirate ship", not everyone is trying to steal from you MPAA, some people actually like paying for content when it easily available (i.e. a fair price).

Technicly everyone is stealing from them as we are not buying everything the mandatory 3 or 4 or more times they think we should.

Not that i'm defending either organizations. But pirates are the reason DRM exists. Both sides can hold blame here.

A few infringents will always exist, that's just unavoidable.The decision to make pirates out of everyone else, however, lies with the industry.

The decision to pirate every content producer under the sun lies with the pirates. See two can play the blame game.

Fixating on "pirates" only reduces the value of the cable subscription I paid for and the DVDs I paid for.

If I had to abide by the limits that Big Media want, I would own neither.

The idea that DRM would not exist in the absence of pirates is just self-serving corporate propaganda. Greedy corporations would still try to charge you extra money for what it already sold you. THAT is ultimately what DRM does. It also enforces highly artificial monopolies. Crass corporations aren't going to pass up something like that.

DRM would still exist because corporations want to expand their rights at the expense of the individual. This isn't just about "protecting intellectual property" but also about whether or not you want to protect the property rights of individuals.

I found an easy solution to all my media problems; about two years ago I canceled my TV subscription. I seem to have a lot more time for life now. With the money I save I can now afford an extra week of vacation every year.

My old house had seven TVs. My new one is much larger and it has three. The huge cost of wiring things coupled with the on going rental fees made me eliminate a bunch of TVs. This has lead to a corresponding large decrease in TV and movie consumption in my household. That consumption has been replaced with Internet use.

Good God! Seven televisions! Are you an addict? If you're watching less TV, sounds like you're coming out ahead. How about investing some of that money into your local arts organizations and improving your community?

...I was thinking that with all of those TVs that he should stop whining about how much wiring costs and wire up the whole house with Cat6 or whatever the current iteration is and have himself a big fat whole house PVR solution. Some of the options are very low profile. Some HTPC's will even latch on to the back of a TV set.